The Sun. — London, England, 1809-04-07 00:00:00

cited a degree of preludica against them in the minds of the Jury ; and his Learned Friend, Mr. Jervis,' bad the convenience of it, by not calling-certain wit nesses, who were previously exaMined, and thereby preventing a reply. The r e sult had been favourable . to hmi (Mr. Jervis), if that result 'could be called so, that .had tended to produce this new. trial ; for it was partly in consequence of the non-examina-' tion of witnesses at the former trial, who bad pre. .Viously.made affidavits before the Lord ChancellOr, that ht _ordered a new trial to-take place, where 'these witnesses might all be examined viva v9ce. The Learned .Counsel then proceeded to state the attempts formerly made to establish ,the claims of the Liverpool, ; family, which he assumed, as being the argument and , &rounds to be supported by ; the present Defendants, It had subsequently turned out that a witness, named Lightfoot, who had formerly: niade an affidavit .IseforrotbeCtiaricellor, tending .to substantiate. the - assertion, that William Barber, of. the Strand, bad originally come from Liverpo:.', but who bad not been examined at the former trial, had. died since the present. issue was ordered. That per-. son had been carried to Worcester, for.thepprpose of examination; but it occurred to hinvibet, the person of the name of Barber he recolleded asn fel. low-apprentice with him at ,Liverpool,., was named John, and not Williams. and on th a t account be waonot called,- A more fraudulent case than the Liverpool one had hardly ei+er 'been set up, in any Court of:Justice; and owing to a discovery subse quently Made, it was not now to be persisted. in ; but the Learned Counsel rook that. opportunityof freeing the Agents and .Counsel of the present Defendants from any partieipatioe oreonnivance in that fraud. It appeared that an,Attorney. in Liverpool, who bas hitherto borne a respeCiable charader, aging for Sarah Leftwich, te.establish the right oftheLiver pool family, -had taken upon himself melamine the register of the birth , of this alleged William Barber, of Redbank, near Warringtou, and had sworn to its veracity before the Chataceller, although he did not think proper to appear to swear to it at the Worees, ter trial, but bad sent one,of his clerks for that pur pose. The clerk produced, a copy 'of the register in ree,stion, purporting to -be relative to the biith of William Barber; the :tied ,of Samuel Barber, which lie (Mr. D.) could prove was most impu dent and palpable perjury ; because he had. the original register now to produce, and it would ap 'pear to. be a register of the birth of a William Barker, and not of William Barber. He could aloe spew 'that the mistake had been pointed out to . that Attorney, at the time of inspection, by a comparison of the letter k, in that name, with others that occurred in words, where a k, ,must necessarily exist, and yet that individual,, not only persisted in the truth of his own affidavit, but sent his Clerk to the former trial,' to confirm the perjury. The Learned Conniel then proceeded -to state the various instances of alleged intercourse tbat• had taken place between his clients and Margaret Ma thews, who had married the William Barber, of n Mguntford Bridge, ear Shrewsbury, in Sbropsb ire; from which tuarriage,'Charles Barber/Ilia intestate, was descended ; and. added, that be could prove, va rious nets of recognition, by which the Plaintiffs' re.. lationship, as second cousins ,to the said Charles:, woeld becompleiely established. . . In support of his statement and arguments, Mr. DAUNaRY caked the:tollowing witnesses : Mr,. John .4114, Agent for the Plaintiffs, who pro,- dueed various ancient registers of births, marriages, and deaths, of the:alleged comtnou aucestof s el the family, —in the Strand ;.-aAture Lloyd, - living as Mouuttord-bridge, aged (in s. Elizabeth Randles,• of 'the sitme place, aged 79 Susannah Roberts, of the same place,' aged 72 ; Elizabeth Adams,. of West minster, who had been servant to John Moody, for 25 b ears, at Pool-quay, in Montgomeryshire. ; N ar y Myles, now of Leition.street, Whiteebap e a Eliza beth Groom, agstd Gs; and the Rev. Itiehard,JOnes a of Great Boddart, Cheshire, who produced the regi 'Ater of the birth of William Barker, dated I Oh jam' 471F1, from which the fraud already stated evidently appeared to have been practised. • To go into any !lather particulars of the .evidence woead be uniuteresting, and would necessarily ex ceed our limits. After an adjouroment for an hour, the Court met again at four o'clock, and proceeded to bear the case of the Defendants. Mr. Jaavis then addressed the Jury on behalf of the Defendants, in a speech which lasted for two hoots and a hall, in which he begged them not to be to,:any degree prejudiced against the eause of his vlientsi from the circumstance, of a frau& having been praaised on the part of other chimeras, with whom the present Plauitiffs were quite neconneaed. The simple proposition before them was, who this William Barber was, who marri . ed . Margaret Ma thews Y . Tbat his clients stood in the situation of first cousins to Charles Barber, the deceased, on 'the mothers side, was a ma, which his Learned firleod had admitted,, and thel:efore it was unnecessary fol . him to Olargeupon it.' All that he should endeavour to shew was, that this William Barbei., the father of Charles, had sprung from another family ,than that .which,his Learned Itsieud had alleged in behalf of the Plaiutiffs. There was an uffirmative to be established: by the Plaintiffs in the former cause, by which his clients could not be affeaed, although the aeriliaAtroa in favour of that Plaintiff ; for he ha& proved that these for whom he now appeared were the nearer conneeied. Mr. Dauncey was interested in opposing that ease of Mr. Serjeant Williams,. the Counsel foe 'Sarah Leftwich : and he . (Mr. Jervis) opposed it in the same manner as he now did the present wee-- Jlis Learned Friend, Mr. - Williams, had evidently' been imposed upon in supporting the case Of Sarah Leftwich ; for a witness of the name of Lightfoot had beenbrought to the.Asiixes At Worcester, who had • made ate affidavit before. theChaueedor, but Was not examined. It had been commUnicated to her Attorney, that although that witness had stated- the name oi the person who bad served an appren siceshipaloug with him at. Liverpool was • •William Barber, yet that it had afterwards occurred him 4 that .it was John, and not William+ and the Atior 'ney.attually withdrew the testimony of that witness , trom the consideration Mahe Jury, and sebstitiatert 'aiaother man, of tlt6 'name of Murphy, "to prove the Haose %kith the full knowledge that. Light e,rt was mistaketh TinJt lA/dot:64 had now de parted this life, perhaps lie had b ore mistaken; teat if i:as Attorney knew it, he tivas Lord Chancellor, for the purpose of ascertaining one or two fads; which could be more easily .and aecorately'ascertained, viva voce, by a, trial et,core . mon law, than by any written evidence being hid beeee it Court of Equity. . The ohjed of the suit was of very considerable importence the property in question 'amounting to tio less. a , sum man - between one and tWU :bundled thousand pounds, •and therefore it Was net. to be much wondered at, that every satisfadioneshould be required by •that Learned Jugde, befere whom .the , question,' * as to its real and proper owners, came to beele tennined. This property belonged to a person 'of the name of Charles Barber, and was entirely of a personal nature, and he haVing died intestate, the question now was, how it was to be distri buted among those who 'had put in thee' claims as relations toethe deceased, it being by law to be divided monied those who stout' in :le equal de gree Of relauonship, whether of the Maternal or paternal line. The pre.ieet question to be tried therefore was, whether* the fiaintiff, Johp Barber, Thomas Barber, Edward . Moody,: Thomas . Moody, • Ann Jacitson, Elizebetle Hughes, the ..wife of F ear) Hughes, Bireh, end John' 'l,4notly, and Thoroae ritirch (both deceased), some or one of them was or, were the sole next of dein, on the part of the fethee, to Charles Barber,. at the time of his. death ? and:also whether some or one Of them was or were some:or:one of the next of kin, on th 6 part 'of the' father, to the said Charles Barber ? said Charle Barber had nequired a large property' in India and there , eeas no doubt (for it Was tint &spitted by either party) sleet he was the son of Willime 1.3.0 her and Meipece Barber, •persoes e.xerciSitig the teide of sadle'rs in the Strew% in Louden, the. !teener having continued to exercise .that trade after the decease' of the :father. Fits eOntended, that both' of the parents of thiA Charles llarber , cune. .front Shropshire, but this was denied by, those who were the ,Defeedants in' this suit. MT. Charles Bnber, returned to Etig; , hind, after the death eflii father , emd Mother, rind lived but a very short' titre to enjoy...the property he bad made, for 'he died at °steno's Hotel,ehr the Astelphi, on the teat of tengia4,..• 1799, within ten days after his return. Immediately after his:eh:Aar, . many persons, es r.tellt neturally be euppesaki . :ep peered to claim his large .property. 2 Artenregst. these persons were the presenWeteedauts, wheat his"Leerped Friend Mr. Jervis,* was, Low to repree sent as claimants on the part . of the mother; : an 4 he Mr. Datineeey) lidd: no ' hesitation in admitting that their . reseealee. clainas, Aweigh tae mother, hat been alreiely .331i:if:eerily :established. That was a tact whiclehe it cr meant to deny ; all - he meant to coat tee' e'ee i.eas, that' his clients stood in equal degree et relationship, : as representatives of Williatif the father ol the deceased, with those. who claimed *es representatives ,:f.Margaret, the .Mother, " and .censettectely that the property ought to be . • equally divided amongst „them. One-half of the property 'the Defendants were already:in possession • of; or at 'least had selliciently established their right to receive; but they having learned thet the whole • Was better than a heV, were disposed to cootest the right of the Plaintiff*, by contending that iii (Mr. • Dauneee's) client:] were not the iepresentatives of 'the' father of the person who died itoestate, and • shirt Wilhamethe 'father, was eitheterepresented by. Other person s, or had now no repreeentatives what. ever. The Defendants, he believed, were to wet 'ne that V -, e Ceher of William Barber, of the Strand, w's riative of Bedbenk e near,Warritig ton, in Leecashire, and, therefore, that be . could not be represented' by those who elaimed‘kindred with the William Barber who came. from Stir:v. ehive; HaVing: given this outline of the se, it mi g ht not he. amiss for him to state, that thite roes : tien had • bath antecedently, investigated by. a. trial tit i the drat. Worcestq hoe the Plaintifts . establildied, their claim as representatives lltrough theynother: Judeed there had been no difficulty 011 41 1 041 g it, HS it. wens unnecessary to .•• go: ter _ tlte . Jury thtl cla44 tbow..who repree tented through the Mother. But there'waii also other trial upon thtit oceasion,u4here4t was centended that the W.. Barber iu qnestion was.a Liverpool matt, /it'd the ‘ert!i6t of 'the Jury :Went to, establish that as a tee.. To make this emitter jet Mute intelligible, b e . sotto,: that she Lord Chancellor : had origoelly directed three issues to be tried at Woreei4t'le the first was to establish the claims of the pees. it IT:11114n, the representatiVei of Wil- Eine, the lather, as eviginally from Shrop)thire r the s e e e e e to otablieli. the claims of tee present De fend:vete teereeentittives of the mother i*and the third to &tern,* whether the said•Williatri Berber was or o Liverpool, so as thereby to eita blidr the clitiereofe MO. Sarah Left Wich, who' stated hersett to he the ere!t next et kin ore the part of. the father. Such was they order in which these trials ,stns) heve tnketi piece ; but that order was, net beeelv obserk ea; ter that which morel lest as the fits{ tried, awl consecllmitly the second verdict must neeesserq havivtiemi reeeleied by tleii promiouoced t e e :n the thitef it . the Livereool man . , were it“..1 , 1)r-,.tleti , filivQ , of Wilhthi, then the. 'Sheep:. frrm ( ; .q,i:t l o t 1.1 , 4,.). Th,vo ,, t,f• threw The andiet- I.uNk&q fjo. I ble in • sebffituting 'another esitnesi, with the same false impression that Lightfoot laboured under; thaf circumstance did not fail to make an impression upon.the Learned Judge's mind, and, together with the circumstance of the causes not being tried in the ' order in which they were intended., the Lord Chan- . cellor thought fit to direa this new trial, the case of Sarah Leftwich being now left entirely out of the question. The Lord Chancellor said, upon that oc• casion, that if all the evidence had been stated to the Jory t and if there hed,beens no question upon that point, he felt strongly disposed to saY, that there Must be an end of the qtiestion in the Court of Equi ty ; but he,thought he Could not go. to that length, meaning, as he did, to say, that there, should be a' new trial for .the reasons he should assign. His Lordship e bstained froth observation& on the argu ments upon this stitsje6l, for he desired it not to be ,Stated any where, whether •he was or was`not sa tisfied with the verdid already pronounced, for he wished thequestion to go to a new trial, without any prejudice Whatever, either against the one patty or die other from any thing-failing from Intri. A new trial was necessary, .because he thought that all the evidence . had not been before the Jnry that ought to 'have been before them,.'end lie could not, 'in the absence of any of it, be quite sure that he colleaed the inferencecorreetly, as to the fa'tis that constituted the other . cases. He (Mr. Jervis) was sure that the Jury wouldtherefore take care todeeide upon the evidence. now brought before them, and not upon any circumstances that had already occurred.— His Lordship, in stating his sentinients upon the ap plication for a new trial, went.on and said, that the hypothesiS of Mrs. LeftWich was, that this William Barber, who died in the Strand, in PM'S, was of the Wm. Barber who cattle from Mountford- bri de; and the hypothesis of the others was, that this Wm. , Barber was not the apprentice at Liverpool, burn of the Cheshire family, but was of the Motintford fa mily. A witness called. Lightfoot, with that im pression upon his mind, and which arose from the recolle&ion of his early }Teri, stated that' his first impression was, that the ,person who was apprentice along with him, was named William, and accents itigle, with such an affidavit, the issues were (Urea ed, and he was subpoenaed 'to attend the trial; but although he was carried to Worcester, he was not called as a Witness, He having afterwards correaed himself before the trial, isy recolleaing that the name of the , person alluded to was, John, ,and not William; his Lordship did not think himself under' the necessity of entering into the question, Whether this correaion were material or not, as he was at. .ready entrusted with the decision, not, only frOtti, circumstances arising from the evidence, but from the condud of the . parties. That that perton was'there, and not produced as a witness. upon the trial, 'was a fait placed beyond all doubt, and be therefore thought iewauld be better that the Matter, should again be investigated, without any opinion ' being given by him as to the elaims of either pf the parties. The. Learned Counsel having said thus Much; in order to shew the real state of the ques-;, tion befhre the Jury, and to do away any erroneou& impres,iter that might be formed oPen their minds by the cirennestances attending the former trial, and the coneetition which his case had with that of the LiverpoOl ease ' as stated by the Plaintiff's Counsel, t es t i ps oes eeee to *cant out the ineenbisteneles he the evidence, and to shew that no relatives of Wm. Barber, who married _Margaret Matthews, 'were in 'existence. should prove that Ws. Barber, ing.uuder that conviction,' had gone to Mountfore., bridge, fotthe purpose of searehieg for her ewe re - hitions, to.Whotn she might bequeath her, property, aunt that she said that Win. Barber had nu relatives iii existence, having had neitheebrothee nor sister. Mr. SHAVIS, in support of the Defendant's case, called Ann Lawten, who, livedwith Mr. and Mrs. Barber, in the Strand, as. servant, for q4 . years, who' delsosed that site never saw nor heard of any relations • 'of Mr..llarber during .all that thee. -John Roberts, who [tad alsolived with these persoes asjourneymati, from Oe.tober, 78 1 till.. the decease of Wth. Bar ber, ' aiad had ever since carried on the business of a saddler,. in t h e Strand, , jointly, with Mrs. Barber, and afterwards on his own account, never heard ei ther of them speak of any relatives of the huaband, but had seen si relation of Mrs. Elarber, named Min ton ; and he knew of her gain& to Moteitfordsbridge, • to'inquire for her own relations. _ _ _ Mark Creer, who had come from the East 'lndies, as servant to Charles Barber, the deceased, had heard him say his.father had come originally from Liver.. pool. This witness, intending to go' to Liverpool; his native place, upon his arrival' in this country, had• been desired by his master to make inquiries there far, his (Mr. Charles Barber's} father's relations, but such inquiries were never made, as Creer did notto ,to Liverpool till after his Master's death. „. • Mr. James Thomas depos ed as to his knowledge of Mrs. Barber's,reiations ; her coming to Shrews —,l bury to inquire for them • and stated, that he never . had heard Of any of heritesbandis relations in, that part Of-the. country. Of a similar: nature were tile testinionies. of .MO4. Margaret Thomas, Mrs: Sarah Lewis, Mrs. Barrow, Mrs. Slangier, Mrs: Ed wardes, Diana Thomas, and Mr. T..Mathevvs, Mr. Searle,. clerk to Mr. Jackson, of- Hatton garden, aysnt for one of the Defendants, deposed, .That he lad,gone last Thursday se'nniglit to Chester, to examine the register as to.the - birth of the alleged WM. Barber, of Liverpool, a copy, of which had been formerly produced and sworn , to, by the At torney of. Sarah Leftwich. On seeing that register, • •he iminediately .discovered that the name Was :Barker, and not Barber, and had no doubt as to . the fact, from a comparison of d& letter k, with those in other Words. Hewmade a'fae4imile. of that part of the register, on behalf of the.. Defendants hi 'the present adios), for whom Mr....rtiekson aa ed. He knew nothing of the substitution of the k.-tor the:k, in the copy formerly, produced, fillf he made that examination of it.. - . Mr.. DAtiNtEY made an able and eloquent reply, anathe Learned Judge' summed up the evidence. at • great loogth. . • . , The Jury retired, and after .a -short ittferv3l, re filmed a verditt for the - Plaintiff, ; by to , hkih, '0)014 , 1 there nut he. yet another new trial, 1,41ey beorofi. its repretatives . of the father, entitled ji)intly with the Defendants, the "tepre3entatwps of- the tn.ititc, to share the' extensive property-ol.the de),:ea,,e(l, N. 4, Matt:o;t:o;urt, Pubbs.ocki by WILI3.AM , A.It.it,Ci.C.it • (TS, Sow it M , StrAuti ; « herb 461velliftVolits, Oideci fur ti:e Pape"? ' .tetters for the —c;. (zest-pa.- 4 I • „ AN AMOUR tN GRVB-STILEET.•—••A charge wars Made at Marlborough-streef Office yesterday; by a. Miss Brand against a Mrs. Middleton, of Grub, street, for an assault, of which Miss Brand displayed strong proofs in the face. It appeared in evidence, that the parties lodged in one house in Grub-street; and the Prosecutrix being to all appearance, and iu the eyes of Mr. Middleton, a very desirable young (s eoman, he ran away with her. The wife, morti- tied at the loss of her husband's, affecaions, traced Miss Brand to Lisle-street, where she had taken lodgings; and she commence,' a vigorous attack' on her on Wednesday night, when she exerted her ta lons to such a degree, that the Prosecutrix exhibited frightful marks of jealousy and anger. The defen dant was heid to bail; but she protested her accuser should not have a face to captivate her husband longer-than her sureties to keep the peacedasted. The Honourable Commissioners of the Lottery attend this morning.at the Cashier's Office, Bank ot England, to seal up and deposit the 1,000 Ticke ts, - to he given next Wednesday morning, and the 600 Tickets given on the Second Day of Drawin g Every Ticket or Sharepurchased before the Wheel goes round next Wednesday Morning, will have . tt Thousand Chances, as the First.4trawn Ticket above 161. will be entitled to 1,000 - whole Tickets. This superior advantage never was before offered; and HOR NSBY and Co. entreat their Friends and the Pub lic to take.advantage of this opportunity, and aPP I Y at their old establ ish ed Offices,26,.Cornhill, and Sr. Margarett's Hill, Borough; and no where else on their aoccstlnt. ' • i.~. in LENT ASSIZES. STAFFORD, APRIL r, AR8911,40) o,THERS, v. WAKE AND °VICES. This citt.4o tia.; • been already befOre the , public, but, from the Magnitude sof the.sum at stake, and tin attending it, we (teem a short Of this 4wcand trial will not be nit:leapt- Able.to many ()I . our Readers. It. took place at these Assizes, before Mr. Baron GUA 17 A NI, and a special Jury, and occupied the Court from nine . o'clock, of , Sknortiay rooMing last,.tiii nearly two of that of Sun day tul owi g The Counsel fur the Plaintiffs were, Mr. DAVN- • CEY, Mr. Serjeaut , M A LEY, ,and Mr. AB/30T; and those fur the Deiemtants „were, • Mr. JLarts, Wtot,cy, Mr. CLiFFOIIO, and Mr. ,GLEAD. Mr. Pim.t.bit - .1.1t ;toed for the Executors of the de ceased • Army'. o: , ened, the ease on the part of the Plaintitb,ll:::l was. followed on the same side, by Davy: Y, 110 stated the circumstances to the Judge anci Jory at considerable length. He' informed them that this wa,san is,ue diretted by. the SHIP MIPS. CiAVIAIND, ATRIL S. Passed by—the Whim, Mizell, and Woolvvech, Bawd. from Gibraltar; Joseph, Dickenson, from Gottenboro ; Drummond, Richmond, ,Titus, Haslap, and the Lord Car- . rington, Bennington, t'rozn Alaita. Sailed—Atte Marquis of Vießoni, Le Blanc, for intli*; and the Fame, Harvey, for Londonderry/ BIRTHS. On the Ist init. the Lady of Richard Hart, Esq. of Dar. Icy Odle, Derbyshire, of a Daughter. On Sunday lair, in Gloucester-place, the Lady of eltlirtile Hulse, Esq. eldest son of Sir Edward Hulse, Bart, of a Son and Heir. Yesterday morning, at his house in Portman.squalvi Lady of Sir john I chnstonc, of Woicrtz4ll, Bart. of a Dautn• ter: M.:TR lED. On the d inn. at Lady Dan's , Cenrgets- square, UM. burgh, Ca ptain T. F. ?Lugo, of the Royal Navy, 4) Mary, daughter oftheiste Francis Scott. Esq. • On the 4th inst. at St. Georp's Church. Ilanot , er-squafer Thomas linnilton Miller, E"4. of Dalswinton. Duinfrierr shire, to Mary Anne. eldest daughter of Colonel Rain, ht.rs for the County of.Wesford, Ireland. Yesterday. at St. john's, Nock:icy, James fisnee. Ettl. of West...y.l2re, in the County of Surrey, to Mi.s Sono , eldest daughter of Mr. Joseph Savage, of Kieksl,a,d, 'bur geon. The same day, at St. Giles•itt-the-Fields, iosiah 11. son, Esq. of Burgh, near Carlisle, to Miss Barker, - oraf daughter of Richard Barker, Esq. of Tavisteick.stteet, Sled. ford-square: , Li L gh a t te o ly ug , at o itlSztetothLamadiptoHno,noCriaapwtainoodHgaatrev,ellkof alit 1 of the Right Hon. Ear of CavaQ, mid widow of the late Captrin W emikat --....•••••••••40 DIP!). anLltuez ml. cht id i t i h i u ' lt.at ieo htr house in QuCtn•ltreet' I"`til'urtrp, the e na ' KincorMonday 01 the 27th 'ult. Penelope Elizaectit. 01, ) r _ daughter of T. D. Harris E q. 0 ap s le in the CoutlT) of Devon. . Etiday Morning !ast in Queen.street, Whi"Oi ven l in • the ssth year of his age,' Mr. Rio t ed K e isiek, the chest. atid only surviving son of the late,Afr. 1)441C heieick, of that taWn. 1 • • On Wednesday evening. Mrs. Crossi , of Southampto n+ . place,,aged•2B, °fa deep decline., -Yesterd4y. at her Noose, Moits.plaee,' Soethampton, A. 3. Greeme, wrdov.of the hoe. ilittniiby Greviie, Esti. In December last, in the Mediterratiean, in the tith yearof his age,. Mr. Toppiit, Midshipman on, hoor.i. POITIOnt.`, *I 4o wins. srocks PR ICA 0, verreloa.v. Bank Stock, $43 " 2 4 2 i tic dir• India Stock. 14 1 ,vy 4 per Cent. 91 1 ? iii India Bonds, las. r 35. per Cent, 1797.. South So Stocli, Irish ; per Cent. Old Ann. shut 4 per Cent. 112 ex. div. Extheq. Bills, xis. 9s. tor. ; per Ct. tted• 67i i ex. tliv. pt. 3 per CMS. 6 7 a Orriniorn, I pr. 11,Astli L. Ann. 1S 5.t6 . hs Imperial 3 per Cent. ex. dxv.. • Cons. for I Ath inst. 15'7 63 RENOVATED IIEALTII. TT has been too freqnettly 'tiubjeti Eifinst nnit Keneral reprobation, that rifest destititte of eietnent ~f the medical art have olfCred themselves as candidate.: la public patronagehi she professional physic. For the p 1 :01" 48 of doing justice to the result of our studies and experience, attlA to prevent us from being classed among those empirics w lvis° i mpru d en t pretensiostshave, unfortunately for sociehl, to ,,•f mfn urably receiver , we beg leave to Submit to the liberal and cntightenixt a faithtul Statement of our pursuits and 44 ' . tittirtmerits. After ,having received a regular medical educe tton as , the pupils of Ifilesers. Grinded and 13ligard, whutC let-lures and practice we carefully attended, as professors AP"' 'surgeons of the 'London' Itespital we entereft otirselvo As sturterni in that justly celebrated school for medical seguire,, • ment, the Royal . College of Edinburgh, and . Wet. inttfUed`_, .. the ditretent branches of anatomy, surgery, the theorY:..,ow prielice of physic, chenliatu, tnitiivirety, botany, &C.. 0 " - • by those espfuent p!ofessf.irs, monr,,,, fironilton, Duncan- mid Itittlterfoni. . We trust 'kve *ball "'"° be decnto:f piesumptnous its saying that our peaticiolotircroja acAntrenients, ate not incoriiidetatale. Having ootes. of years Venereal Cottipiai utt , and, the traff,l n nietice, of iishicity, the particular of our , not ior: it will; we !bye, he allowed that we have know lodge *of their tre.itnteta Und I:nre. fesliglit ali ~ l t . ed its caseser infection t pared ref.estAblisinfient is Wlttil , the short period or two days, k and in t hos. Of (11C'Ut ra" ,, , yeteracy, where other practitioners Noe (Ailed 'of att c . c `7' tt ier proper perseverance in our plan tit treatineriteriStires to • patient a sate alai radical curs.. „ re t he Amidst the melancholy variety of disorders 4 'Wht' , h e 'efliects of a habit lung. ond pirrsueJ bY piuth of both sexes, there arc riots more nr 're** 41 4 f regshig titan tivue tterifiesurnts ana.debffl.fies fluently prevent or, embitter the rtiatfirnoltaistite. 0 peusur.% frinst be a Consolation to knivw chit they ttl*Yw t i vit by a new•arat infalliA)te Int)tie of treatment. heti:stored t v -, o • . greatest.ot 311 mottatt,blet.iinA manly, a strolig; anlY, an dv „ o ', v et 01 4' conatitutlon. in sit c'AirC) nt trtun , s ciuseartstrq, at well as in every s pecies Ail' venete3l ere may be 'Amstar; by patients ~r&hut sutra the g 01' artniliffnottr. flours t>:'consutiation home ir tett tattuce, 463 fr.,:co f in int cf7ellingtiff lo ;It night. atients in the Cm:nifty ret.furteft t.) ,-state state the 0" P in , la ra ot their );•,e, andlenepti inPir ItvittA. cl,,sing a restntroce tor advke aiSfimanieines, when f• „ e s,a hesa m e snit be vien, It to arty oArt tivc kogclum. ~ , brat , to ei.tr.tisitli.rl4libi, tne.posr3)," letters r. t the. a.:cOinit tor Inettieincs. C 'Oak I?. .1 Sur l eims; !tier, 14N -it-AVM-VI ttc ,ne 0). trt.va n t -athisre teSitett3;:li., r of I..,irotim Cite diligence, `s •:i, ;ratvleity, iney i ,, infect the d' , ..;t!e• • L.;nett tttent Awing tlvt folio r:Otioe, ' • it ,:.